Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804f043a84a4-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804f043a84a4-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804f043a84a4-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 7363,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 29 April, 2011, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-SC/articleshow/8112985.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 7460,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 7363,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 7363,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 29 April, 2011, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-SC/articleshow/8112985.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 7460,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 7363
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.<br /><br />A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.<br /><br />As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.<br /><br />Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&quot; she said.<br /><br />&quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&quot; she said.<br /><br />If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; Justice Misra said.<br /><br />The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors' duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a 'trade',&quot; the bench said.<br /><br />It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.<br /><br />&quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; the court said.<br /><br /><em>Times View<br /></em><br />If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that's a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. <br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804f043a84a4-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804f043a84a4-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804f043a84a4-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 7363,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 29 April, 2011, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-SC/articleshow/8112985.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 7460,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 7363,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 7363,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 29 April, 2011, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-SC/articleshow/8112985.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 7460,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 7363
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.<br /><br />A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.<br /><br />As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.<br /><br />Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&quot; she said.<br /><br />&quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&quot; she said.<br /><br />If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; Justice Misra said.<br /><br />The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors' duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a 'trade',&quot; the bench said.<br /><br />It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.<br /><br />&quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; the court said.<br /><br /><em>Times View<br /></em><br />If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that's a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. <br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804f043a84a4-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f043a84a4-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804f043a84a4-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804f043a84a4-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 7363,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 29 April, 2011, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-SC/articleshow/8112985.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 7460,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 7363,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 7363,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 29 April, 2011, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-SC/articleshow/8112985.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 7460,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 7363
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &amp;quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&amp;quot; she said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &amp;quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; Justice Misra said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &amp;quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors&#039; duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a &#039;trade&#039;,&amp;quot; the bench said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Times View&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that&#039;s a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.<br /><br />A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.<br /><br />As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.<br /><br />Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&quot; she said.<br /><br />&quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&quot; she said.<br /><br />If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; Justice Misra said.<br /><br />The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors' duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a 'trade',&quot; the bench said.<br /><br />It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.<br /><br />&quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; the court said.<br /><br /><em>Times View<br /></em><br />If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that's a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. <br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 7363,
		'title' => 'Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.<br />
<br />
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.<br />
<br />
As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.<br />
<br />
Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&quot; she said.<br />
<br />
&quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&quot; she said.<br />
<br />
If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; Justice Misra said.<br />
<br />
The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors' duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a 'trade',&quot; the bench said.<br />
<br />
It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.<br />
<br />
&quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; the court said.<br />
<br />
<em>Times View<br />
</em><br />
If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that's a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. <br />
<br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 29 April, 2011, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-SC/articleshow/8112985.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 7460,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 7363,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Health',
	'metaDesc' => '
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.<br /><br />A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.<br /><br />As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.<br /><br />Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&quot; she said.<br /><br />&quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&quot; she said.<br /><br />If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; Justice Misra said.<br /><br />The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors' duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a 'trade',&quot; the bench said.<br /><br />It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.<br /><br />&quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; the court said.<br /><br /><em>Times View<br /></em><br />If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that's a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. <br /><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 7363,
	'title' => 'Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.<br />
<br />
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.<br />
<br />
As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.<br />
<br />
Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&quot; she said.<br />
<br />
&quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&quot; she said.<br />
<br />
If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; Justice Misra said.<br />
<br />
The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors' duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a 'trade',&quot; the bench said.<br />
<br />
It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.<br />
<br />
&quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; the court said.<br />
<br />
<em>Times View<br />
</em><br />
If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that's a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. <br />
<br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 29 April, 2011, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-SC/articleshow/8112985.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'private-practice-by-govt-doctors-no-crime-sc-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-7460',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 7460,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 7363
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC  by Dhananjay Mahapatra'
$metaKeywords = 'Health'
$metaDesc = '
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law.<br /><br />A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade.<br /><br />As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action.<br /><br />Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. &quot;The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration,&quot; she said.<br /><br />&quot;It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense,&quot; she said.<br /><br />If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would &quot;fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; Justice Misra said.<br /><br />The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. &quot;In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors' duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a 'trade',&quot; the bench said.<br /><br />It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act.<br /><br />&quot;But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act,&quot; the court said.<br /><br /><em>Times View<br /></em><br />If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that's a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest. <br /><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Private practice by govt doctors no crime: SC by Dhananjay Mahapatra

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law. A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra quashed the FIR lodged against two Punjab government doctors, who were charging Rs 100 per patient in an evening private clinic, under Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, under which it is an offence for a government servant to engage in a trade. As the Punjab government had banned private practice by doctors in its employment, the police booked the two in April 2003 for charging fee from patients. The bench said at best it could amount to breaching a government order making them liable for departmental action. Justice Misra, writing the judgment for the Bench, said corruption meant acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. "The demand/receipt of a fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same is obviously the amount charged towards professional remuneration," she said. "It would be preposterous, in our view, to hold that if a doctor charges a fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against plain common sense," she said. If a government doctor violates a government order banning private practice, then it would "fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the service rules but would not constitute a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act," Justice Misra said. The bench also criticised the police for booking the doctors under Section 168 of IPC for indulging in trade while holding the post of a government doctor. "In our view, offence under Section 168 of IPC cannot be held to have been made out against them as the treatment of patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement in a trade as the doctors' duty to treat patients is in the discharge of his professional duty which cannot be held to be a 'trade'," the bench said. It said there might be cases of medical negligence, demanding and accepting money to favour one patient over another where involvement of doctor could amount to an offence under PC Act. "But, if the medical professional has acted in a manner which is contrary only to the government instructions dehors any criminal activity or criminal negligence, the same would not constitute an offence either under the IPC or a case of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act," the court said. Times View If the Prevention of Corruption Act in its current form does not allow government doctors who practise privately to be defined as corrupt, it is time to amend the law. These doctors are paid an allowance specifically to compensate them for not being allowed to carry on a private practice. This is not without reason. If they were allowed to do so, there would be a clear incentive to make the quality of service poor in government hospitals so that people are forced to consult them privately. Indeed, this is often the case. If the allowance needs to be raised, that's a separate issue, but the law must be designed to prevent a conflict of interest.